See other 9/11 Articles
Title: WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined
Source:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html
URL Source: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein_pullit.html
Published: Feb 10, 2007
Author: M Rivero
Post Date: 2007-02-10 20:28:49 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 46113
Comments: 467
WTC 7: Silverstein's "Pull It" Explanation Examined On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue: Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ... In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building. Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. [US Department of State] There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7: "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report] "There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics] "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." [New York Times] Let's have a look at Silverstein's full statement: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." WMV video download (490kB) In summary, the fire department commander said the fire could not be contained, Silverstein said "the smartest thing to do is pull it", and the fire department made the decision to pull. "Pull" is a term used in building demolition... "We're getting ready to pull Building 6" ... "We had to be very careful how we demolished Building 6..." WMV video download (564kB) ...but the US Department of State contends that Silverstein's "pull it" statement refers to withdrawing firefighters from WTC 7. If this was the case then firefighters should have received a message which said something like "World Trade 7 is unsafe. Abandon the building and withdraw from the area." Okay, let's have a look at the language used by firefighters withdrawing from the area of WTC 7: "It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..." WMV video download (1 MB) The above indicates the message received by the firefighters was "We are going to demolish 7 World Trade. Clear the area." INDRA SINGH EMT: "...by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down." HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?" SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..." [Prison Planet] It has also been stated that a 20 second radio countdown preceded the collapse of WTC 7. The statement by Silverstein Properties and the US Department of State also contends there were no deaths in WTC 7 because "pull it" was an evacuation order. This is factually incorrect: Speakers for voice evacuation announcements were located throughout the building and were activated manually at the Fire Control Center (FCC) [WTC 7 Report] It would be impossible to miss an evacuation order. "...I'm on top of building 7 just pulling out rubbish. Pulled out a Port Authority cop at about 11 o'clock in the morning..." WMV video download (597kB) "When 7 World Trade Center came down on Sept. 11, an agent on loan from Washington, special officer Craig Miller, perished..." [PDF download (link expired)] "The Secret Service New York Field Office was located in 7 World Trade Center ... Master Special Officer Craig Miller, died during the rescue efforts." [PDF download] The death of Master Special Officer Craig Miller is another inconsistency in the official explanation of Silverstein's "pull it" comment. Why aren't the numerous inconsistencies questioned by the mainstream media? See also: Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis What Really Happened Email This Page To A Friend
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 124.
#2. To: Kamala, ALL (#0)
This is from ImplosionWorld, experts in building demolition: http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf "We have never, ever heard the term "pull it" being used to refer to the explosive demolition of a building, and neither has any blast team we've spoken with. The term is used in conventional demolition circles, to describe the specific activity of attaching long cables to a pre-weakened building and maneuvering heavy equipment (excavators, bulldozers, etc.) to "pull" the frame of the structure over onto its side for further dismantlement. This author and our research team were on site when workers pulled over the six-story remains of WTC-6 in late fall 2001, however we can say with certainty that a similar operation would have been logistically impossible at Ground Zero on 9/11, physically impossible for a building the size of WTC 7, and the structure did not collapse in that manner anyway." ************* http://www.implosionworld.com/wtc.htm Implosionworld.com has received numerous inquiries from around the world requesting information and commentary relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, and specifically the felling of the World Trade Center towers. We have been contacted by media outlets, structural engineers, schoolteachers, conspiracy theorists and many others who are searching for answers and some “perspective” regarding these significant events that have evoked deep emotions and undoubtedly changed our world forever. The editors of implosionworld.com have created this page to answer a few of the most frequently asked questions that fall within our area of knowledge and expertise. But first we’d like to be clear in stating that any conversation relating to “implosions” and what causes structures to fail is undertaken with reverence and respect to those who perished as a result of this event. As many of our frequent web visitors are aware, Implosionworld.com’s offices are located close to New York City, and several of our employees were personally touched by this tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers remain with the families of those lost and injured, and our intent here is to help foster a constructive base of knowledge and understanding through education, while dispelling false rumors related to the attack. DID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TOWERS ACTUALLY “IMPLODE”? No. They collapsed in an uncontrolled fashion, causing extensive damage to surrounding structures, roadways and utilities. Although when viewed from a distance the towers appeared to have telescoped almost straight down, a closer look at video replays reveal sizeable portions of each building breaking free during the collapse, with the largest sections--some as tall as 30 or 40 stories--actually “laying out” in several directions. The outward failure of these sections is believed to have caused much of the significant damage to adjacent structures, and smaller debris caused structural and cosmetic damage to hundreds of additional buildings around the perimeter of the site. WHY DID THEY COLLAPSE? Each 110-story tower contained a central steel core surrounded by open office space, with 18-inch steel tubes running vertically along the outside of the building. These structural elements provided the support for the building, and most experts agree that the planes impacting the buildings alone would not have caused them to collapse. The intense heat from the burning jet fuel, however, gradually softened the steel core and redistributed the weight to the outer tubes, which were slowly deformed by the added weight and the heat of the fire. Eventually, the integrity of these tubes was compromised to the point where they buckled under the weight of the higher floors, causing a gravitational chain reaction that continued until all of the floors were at ground level. DID THE TERRORISTS PLANT ANY BOMBS IN THE BUILDINGS IN ADVANCE TO GUARANTEE THEIR DEMISE? To our knowledge there is no evidence whatsoever to support this assertion. Analysis of video and photographs of both towers clearly shows that the initial structural failure occurred at or near the points where the planes impacted the buildings. Furthermore, there is no visible or audible indication that explosives or any other supplemental catalyst was used in the attack. HOW DOES THIS EVENT COMPARE WITH A NORMAL BUILDING IMPLOSION? The only correlation is that in a very broad sense, explosive devices (airplanes loaded with fuel) were used to intentionally bring down buildings. However it can be argued that even this vague similarity relates more to military explosive demolition than to building implosions, which specifically involve the placement of charges at key points within a structure to precipitate the failure of steel or concrete supports within their own footprint. The other primary difference between these two types of operations is that implosions are universally conducted with the utmost concern for adjacent properties and human safety---elements that were horrifically absent from this event. Therefore we can conclude that what happened in New York was not a “building implosion.” ***********
Photos of FDNY in Action Before & After WTC Buildings Collapsed
WTC Fire Covering Several Floors, Heating Metal Red-Hot
Ha, ha. That is an image of the south tower right after impact. That isn't the perimeter girders "red hot" its the jet fuel burning. According to NIST/FEMA around 4500 gals were avalable, and in less than 10 minutes all the jet fuel was gone, and also according to NIST, the towers were an oxygen and fuel poor environment. Oh, yeah, by the way, according to your Einstein train of logic from another thread, why are you quesioning or commenting on fire or structual issues? Are you fire or structual engineer or scientist? I won't waste my time with you long. You'll get your so richly deserved beating and I'll move on. Your LIHOP, bungling government theory won't hold up here.
Flames are now red instead of orange? On the highest level of the fire, the picture is clearly showing a dull red glow, which is not of any jet fuel, which would be orange flames. Something in the interior is being heated red-hot from the flames. Posting a photo is "commenting on fire or structural issues?" It would have to come from somebody with enough brains to know what color flames are, and the difference between posting a photo and a comment. That rules you out.
Sorry, there are no photos of "glowing red" structural steel. There may be "something" burning, but it isn't steel. Again, the "something" whatever that is burning, is burning around 1100-1200 degrees gas temps. This would line up perfectly with the steel temps of 480-600. According to NIST, the jet fuel was burned off in minutes and the WTC office floors were fuel poor and the fuel in a given area would burn up in around 20 minutes. The west side of WTC 2 never even had any fire or heat at all. The south tower fires were basically out in around 40 minutes. Much too short to heat any steel to any degree. NIST/FEMA engineers looked at and tested the steel from the impact/fire zones and it survived the impacts and preformed great, just as the main designers and architects said it would. The towers not only were designed for an airliner impact, but multiple impacts, at any speed and the fuel dumped involved. NIST did fire temp tests on the steel from the impact area and found physical temps of 480- 600. For structural steel to "glow red", you are talking temps of physical steel reaching 1700 and higher and then staying at those temps. Like at the Madrid fire. NIST again states that fuel was gone in minutes and it was a office fuel poor fire. The photo is taken right after impact and the fuel dump involved. There is no way steel reached that temp that fast. It takes time. Its impossible, plus there is no scientific evidence of this. NIST doesn't claim this. If you have some inside knowledge of the temps, that NIST doesn't, I think you should notify them with this breaking news!! Your photo is your comment. Its misleading and deceptive. I would like to see another photo of the same shot taken 25 minutes later. You know why that photo isn't shown? Because it would show that the fire and flames were out and gone. Like I said, deceptive and misleading. Boy, when things don't go your way, the accusations, name calling and such comes out right away. I won't waste much time on you, so don't get your panties in a bunch.
I never said anything about gas temps, structural steel, non-structural steel, or building construction. I posted a photo and said that metal was red-hot. Now you're quoting the government agencies you say are lying. Interesting. I'd like to see photo of the **thermite,** which burns white-hot and gives off a flame brighter than a welder's torch. Right, Toots. That explains your "panties in a bunch" remark below. That's why you've addressed 5 posts to me in the last 2 days. Best to look after your own panties, Toots. You're Bozo #2.
I'll admit, all the nonsense about the thermite only shows the people who believe in it know nothing about it. I made thermite as a kid. All it is a combination of aluminum dust and iron oxide - - which is rust. I set it off with a sparkler. It doesn't "pour" out of buildings. It goes whoosh, burns white-hot, burns holes through metal, and leaves no residue. I won't even address the rest of the nonsense about remote-controlled airplames and explosives at the base of the buildings.
And it's an incendiary, not an *explosive* either. If you mix it with real explosives like RDX, 1 of 2 things will happen (2) The explosive (RDX) will detonate and splatter the incendiary (thermite) all over the place before it has a chance to do any cutting. Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
(2) The explosive (RDX) will detonate and splatter the incendiary (thermite) all over the place before it has a chance to do any cutting. As I said, people who talk about thermite in buildings know nothing about thermite. I made it once, and never again. The stuff is extraordinarily dangerous. And you're right: it didn't explode, it just burned like crazy.
I was mistaken.. it was of thermite but on a block of ice which exploded..here is what I saw.. Now a question.. some say the explosions were caused by thermite which I dont believe .. if in fact it was conspiracy of some type ...other than the conspiracy the gov says it is. is it possible that thermite was used to weaken the structure plus other explosives.. here is the video of the explosions
Here's a passage from the Wiki article on "Thermite reaction": Thermite reactions have many uses. Thermite was originally used for repair welding in-place thick steel sections such as locomotive axle-frames where the repair can take place without removing the part from its installed location. It can also be used for quickly cutting or welding steel such as rail tracks, without requiring complex or heavy equipment. Like you, I'll let people judge for themselves whether a thermite reaction (and there are different types) could have been used to quickly cut the steel in the WTC buildings. ;)
Regarding the possibility of thermite at the WTC site:
Greening's hypothesis did not purport to disprove the possibility of cutter charges using thermite reactions---it merely proposed an alternative explanation relying on aluminium supplied by the crashing planes! His hypothesis however cannot be replicated empirically. See Dr. Steven Jones' paper here.
No, Dr Greening also provides an alternate source for the other components in thermite. For example, he points out that sulfer was present in large quantities in building materials. Furthermore, in his paper ( http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf) he shows that there are other explanations than thermite (or thermate) for the heat needed to explain the heat and the molten materials observed at the WTC site. Sorry, but you are misrepresenting Greening's work if you are trying to suggest to readers that he wasn't trying to dispute the thermite theory. He was. And unlike *EX-professor* Jones (a sub atomic particle physicist), Dr Greening actually does have a PHD in CHEMISTRY. He also observed that *EX-professor* Jones' test "lacks most of the key conditions that were present in the WTC impact zones on 9-11, namely prolonged fires ignited by aviation fuel, sustained by burning plastics, paper, furniture, etc, that directly heated water, aluminum and rusted steel in the presence of crushed concrete and gypsum. I challenge Prof. Jones to repeat his tests under these conditions and publish the results." And as far as I know, *EX-professor* Jones has done neither.
Of course he was "disputing" the thermite hypothesis if he was trying to provide alternatives. My point was that he failed to falsify the hypothesis he was disputing---he never claimed to have done that. And unlike *EX- professor* Jones (a sub atomic particle physicist), Dr Greening actually does have a PHD in CHEMISTRY. He also observed that *EX-professor* Jones' test "lacks most of the key conditions that were present in the WTC impact zones on 9-11, namely prolonged fires ignited by aviation fuel, sustained by burning plastics, paper, furniture, etc, that directly heated water, aluminum and rusted steel in the presence of crushed concrete and gypsum. I challenge Prof. Jones to repeat his tests under these conditions and publish the results." And as far as I know, *EX-professor* Jones has done neither. This is simply irrelevant. Jones was pressured to take early retirement from BYU because of his questioning of the 9/11 official story, but that does not delegitimize his credentials. The fact that he has a PhD in physics instead of chemistry does not mean that he has no expertise in chemistry in general or thermite reactions in particular, as you would know if you had any inkling what you were talking about. Finally, Greening's challenge (and I notice you don't provide a link to it) to Jones to exactly replicate the conditions in the Towers on 9/11 is nonsense and he knows it: according to the terms of Greening's hypothesis, Jones should have been able to replicate Greening's hypothesized "violent thermite reactions" using molten aluminum pouring onto crushed gypsum, concrete and rusty steel. He couldn't: For example, F. Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." [Greening, 2006] So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact no "violent thermite" reactions seen. We observed that the temperature of the molten aluminum in contact with the rusty iron simply cooled at about 25 oC per minute (measured with an infrared probe) until the aluminum solidified, so that any thermite reactions between the aluminum and iron oxide must have been minimal and did not compete with radiative and conductive cooling, thus NOT supporting predictions made by Greening. There was no observable damage or even warping of the steel. (See photograph below.) Nor were violent reactions observed when we dropped molten aluminum onto crushed gypsum and concrete (wet or dry) and rusty steel. [Jones, 2006; available at http://www.scholarsfor9 11truth.org/ExptAlMelt.doc ] These experiments lend no support whatever to the notion [see Greening, 2006] that molten aluminum in the WTC Towers could have destroyed the enormous steel columns in the cores of the buildings, even if those columns were rusty and somehow subjected to direct contact with liquid aluminum. F. Greening’s latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the oxygen in the tanks. This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, he suggests, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in the building, to produce the large metal flow seen at yellow-hot temperature, flowing from WTC2. [Greening, 2006] Note that the latest proposed explanation provides no mechanism for feeding fuel (office materials) into the oxygen stream, i.e., this is not like an oxy-acetylene torch. Moreover, even if the tanks survived the plane crashes, to melt steel would require steel (not air) temperatures of over 2,700 degrees F – while the steel structure is wicking the heat away from the heat source. Greening needs to consider heat transport in the steel as well as the probability that oxygen tanks in the planes could survive the destructive crashes of the planes. Finally, no plane hit WTC 7, so this latest hypothesis fails from the outset in this case. But we do consider alternative hypotheses such as these. Finally, the data from the solidified slag are not consistent with molten structural steel since it contains almost no chromium, yet shows significant fluorine and elemental sulfur, and high concentrations of nickel and zinc. The laws of physics were not somehow suspended during the supposed "unprecedented attack" of 9/11.
#130. To: Peetie Wheatstraw (#124)
Good post. BAC is exposed - again! ;0)
The fact that Dr Greening has a PHD in CHEMISTRY and EX-professor Jones' degree (and experience) is in sub-atomic particles is far from irrelevant or inconsequential. The problem with your side in this debate is that EX-professor Jones' is about the best you can come up with ... out of a world filled with experts who really do understand structures, demolition, thermite, chemistry, fire, steel, impact, seismology and macro-world physics. The rest of your *experts* are mostly philosophers, theologians, economists, janitors, software developers and jazz musicians. ROTFLOL! No, you just proved you didn't actually read the report from Dr Greening that I kindly linked you to (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf). The challenge is in that link. Since you insist, let's take a look at the appropriateness of Jones' *experiment*. From the above link: ----------------------- 3. Prof. S. Jones at BYU has recently tested the reactivity of molten aluminum towards materials such as rusted steel and concrete. (See his Feb, 2006, article at: Scholarsfortruth.org). While his results are interesting, Prof. Jones has not conducted anything close to the tests I suggested. Ironically, Prof. Jones quotes from an e-mail I wrote to him on January 26th 2006, where I outline the type of test that would settle the question of the role of molten aluminum in the WTC collapse: "I suspect our different views will never be resolved by discussion alone. I therefore suggest an experimental resolution: The NIST fire tests, which were designed to simulate the conditions in WTC 1 & 2 after the aircraft impacts, should be repeated in a more realistic environment that includes shredded aluminum alloy 2024, crushed concrete and gypsum, water, rusted steel, aviation fuel, plastics, etc.... Then I want to see two things happen: (i) The fires melt the aluminum, and (ii) The molten aluminum ignites violent, explosive reactions." In spite of what I suggested in my January e-mail, namely simulations that reproduce conditions in the WTC fires and thus be an acceptable test of my claims, Prof. Jones carries out two entirely different experiments: (i) Molten aluminum was poured onto a section of clean, dry, rusted steel. Because there were no violent reactions in these two tests, Prof. Jones concludes that my hypothesis is invalid! This conclusion is reached in spite of the fact that gypsum was not even tested, and none of the materials were pre-heated or crushed. Of all the parameters not duplicated in Prof. Jones' experiments I would argue that the crushing of the materials is one of the most important. Why? It is a well-known fact that solid-state reaction rates depend on the surface area of the reactants. A one kilogram block of concrete has a surface area of about 0.06 m^2. The surface area of one kilogram of concrete crushed to 60 um particles has a surface area calculated as follows (BAC - see link) = 67 m^2. Crushed (pulverized) materials are much more reactive than solid blocks of material. ... In conclusion I would say that Prof. Jones is, of course, entitled to his opinion, but I would argue that his "simulation" lacks most of the key conditions that were present in the WTC impact zones on 9-11, namely prolonged fires ignited by aviation fuel, sustained by burning plastics, paper, furniture, etc, that directly heated water, aluminum and rusted steel in the presence of crushed concrete and gypsum. I challenge Proj. Jones to repeat his tests under these conditions and publish the results. ----------------------- And we see he has not done either. And to those who would like to know what Dr Greening actually theorized, I suggest reading the above link. Regarding this claim (since you got it from EX-professor Jones): http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html "a) Professor Jones tells us that a metal low in chromium, with “abundant manganese” rules out the possibility of it being structural steel. Checking the steel specifications for the time tells us otherwise, though." And for those who would like to see other reports on 9/11 by Dr Greening, go here:
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest "Pull" is a term used in building demolition...
#3. To: BeAChooser, All (#2)
#4. To: All (#3)
#6. To: AGAviator, *9-11* (#4)
#10. To: Kamala (#6)
(Edited)
Ha, ha. That is an image of the south tower right after impact. That isn't the perimeter girders "red hot" its the jet fuel burning.
Oh, yeah, by the way, according to your Einstein train of logic from another thread, why are you quesioning or commenting on fire or structual issues? Are you fire or structual engineer or scientist?
I won't waste my time with you long. You'll get your so richly deserved beating and I'll move on.
#12. To: AGAviator, *9-11* (#10)
#14. To: Kamala (#12)
Sorry, there are no photos of "glowing red" structural steel. There may be "something" burning, but it isn't steel. Again, the "something" whatever that is burning, is burning around 1100-1200 degrees gas temps.
According to NIST...NIST/FEMA engineers looked at and tested the steel
Your photo is your comment. Its misleading and deceptive. I would like to see another photo of the same shot taken 25 minutes later.
Boy, when things don't go your way, the accusations, name calling and such comes out right away.
I won't waste much time on you
So don't get your panties in a bunch
Bozo List: (1) Angle, (2) Kamala
#15. To: AGAviator (#14)
I'd like to see photo of the **thermite,** which burns white-hot and gives off a flame brighter than a welder's torch.
#18. To: YertleTurtle, Destro (#15)
I made thermite as a kid...It doesn't "pour" out of buildings. It goes whoosh, burns white-hot, burns holes through metal, and leaves no residue.
(1) The incendiary (thermite) will burn up the explosive (RDX) before the explosive detonates, or
#24. To: AGAviator (#18)
(1) The incendiary (thermite) will burn up the explosive (RDX) before the explosive detonates, or
#25. To: YertleTurtle (#24)
(Edited)
And you're right: it didn't explode, it just burned like crazy.
#26. To: Zipporah (#25)
#60. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#26)
Thermite
#66. To: BeAChooser (#60)
#116. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#66)
Greening's hypothesis did not purport to disprove the possibility of cutter charges using thermite reactions---it merely proposed an alternative explanation relying on aluminium supplied by the crashing planes!
See Dr. Steven Jones' paper here.
#124. To: BeAChooser (#116)
Sorry, but you are misrepresenting Greening's work if you are trying to suggest to readers that he wasn't trying to dispute the thermite theory. He was.
Replies to Comment # 124.
#153. To: Peetie Wheatstraw, ALL (#124)
This is simply irrelevant.
Finally, Greening's challenge (and I notice you don't provide a link to it)
For example, F. Greening has suggested that aluminum from the planes which struck the Towers could melt, and that this aluminum might fall on "rusted steel surfaces inducing violent thermite explosions." [Greening, 2006] So a few students and I did straightforward experiments by melting aluminum and dropping molten aluminum on pre-heated rusted steel surfaces. There were in fact no "violent thermite" reactions seen.
(ii) Molten aluminum was poured onto a clean, dry, concrete block. F. Greening’s latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the oxygen in the tanks.
Finally, the data from the solidified slag are not consistent with molten structural steel since it contains almost no chromium, yet shows significant fluorine and elemental sulfur, and high concentrations of nickel and zinc.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 124.
